Allahabad HC Upholds Arms Licence Cancellation Over 757 Unaccounted Cartridges
The Allahabad High Court declined to interfere with the cancellation of an arms licence after the holder failed to account for 757 cartridges, some reportedly used in weddings and religious festivals.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissed a writ petition on 29 July 2026 challenging the cancellation of an arms licence and the dismissal of the appeal against that cancellation. The petitioner, Akhilesh Kumar, held an arms licence issued in 2000 but could produce only 57 live cartridges and 33 empty ones when inspected in September 2019, despite having purchased 857 cartridges in total. The shortfall of 757 cartridges — which the petitioner attributed to use in a marriage, Chhat Puja, and Durga Puja — was found to constitute a violation of the ammunition limits under Rule 23 of the Arms Rules, 2016 and Section 17(3)(d) of the Arms Act, 1959. The court found no reason to interfere.
The Inspection and the Shortfall
An arms licence was granted to Akhilesh Kumar in 2000. On 6 September 2019, an inspection was conducted by the licensing authority. During the inspection, Kumar disclosed that he had purchased 857 cartridges in all. He was, however, able to produce only 57 live cartridges and 33 empty cartridges.
The petitioner's explanation for the remaining 757 cartridges was that they had been used in training, a marriage ceremony, Chhat Puja, and Durga Puja. The licensing authority did not accept this explanation. It found that Kumar had failed to produce the unaccounted cartridges and had also failed to provide specific details of how each was used. On this basis, the licensing authority held that Rule 23 of the Arms Rules, 2016 (erroneously referred to as Rule 32 in the impugned orders) and Section 17(3)(d) of the Arms Act, 1959 had been violated, and cancelled the licence. An appeal by Kumar was dismissed on the same grounds.
The Legal Framework: Ammunition Limits and Licence Conditions
Rule 23 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which the court quoted in full, caps the quantity of ammunition for breech-loading firearms at 200 cartridges purchasable per firearm per calendar year and 100 cartridges in possession at any given time. A higher quantity can be permitted only by the State Government in exceptional cases with good and sufficient reasons recorded in writing, or by the Central Government through a general or special order.
Rule 112(2) of the Arms Rules, 2016, also quoted by the court, entitles the licensing authority to inquire at any time during the currency of a licence whether the arms or ammunition for which it was granted remain in the possession of the licensee, and to require their production for that purpose.
Additional Condition No. 5 of Schedule III (Form III) of the Arms Rules, 2016 further prohibits a licensee from purchasing ammunition in excess of the maximum prescribed, both for the yearly purchasable amount and the amount that may be possessed at any one time as laid down in Rule 23.
Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 governs revocation and suspension of licences. The licensing authority invoked Section 17(3)(d) on the basis that licence conditions had been contravened.
Petitioner's Argument: Rules Were Not in Force at Licence Grant
Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, counsel for the petitioner, argued that there was no mandatory requirement to preserve used cartridges or to maintain detailed records of their use. He further submitted that the 2018 notification was not applicable at the time the arms licence was originally granted in 2000 and that the petitioner had therefore not maintained such records.
Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for the State and supported the impugned orders.
Why the Court Rejected the Petitioner's Reasoning
Justice Shamshery held that an arms licence is a privilege, granted only when the licensee undertakes to strictly comply with its conditions. The conditions were part of the licence from the time it was issued in 2000, and were further crystallised when the Arms Rules, 2016 came into force.
The court rejected the argument that Joy firing at weddings and religious festivals could justify the consumption of 757 cartridges. It held that a licensee is not permitted to use a licensed firearm for joy firing. The petitioner had neither submitted details of the ammunition purchased nor explained satisfactorily how each of the 757 cartridges was used.
The court observed that the deficiency of 757 cartridges was “a huge number” and that if such a large quantity had been used in marriages and festivals for joy firing, that itself was sufficient for the licensing authority to hold that licence conditions had been violated.
The court drew a clear line: it was the duty of the licence holder to keep a record of ammunition purchased and, if used, to maintain details of the numbers consumed and the purpose. The petitioner had done neither. The failure to produce the cartridges or provide a credible account of their use meant the licensing authority's finding of violation was well founded.
Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit. The orders cancelling the arms licence and dismissing the appeal against cancellation were upheld. The court found no ground to interfere with either order.